theoretical drink driving

[kujawski]

After watching yesterdays 'Traffic Cops' on tv, i have a question of 'what would happen? , who would be prosecuted?' if this theoretical situation came up:

Police are called to a traffic accident on a motorway, only one car involved, (has hit the central reservation and flipped over), both occupants manage to get out of the vehicle and are unhurt (apart from a few scratches), They are husband and wife (both the same age and incedently the same birthdate), both are completely legless and are obviously over the limit, when asked neither of them can remember who was driving,(as their excuse is that they where drunk and it all happened too fast), both are insured.

whos the one who gets done for drink driving,

[kujawski]

and i forgot to add neither of them owns the car it belongs to their son, who has put both of them on his insurance.

[fountain]

Both would be arrested, an evidential breath sample obtained, and they would be interviewed when sober.
If they still couldn't or wouldn't remember, the police would have to rely on witnesses or forensics to prove who was driving.

[kujawski]

ok , to make it (very Unlikely) more questionable,
both use the car often, and they where both wearing gloves, and there were no witnesses.

[black bunny]

Perhaps the police could arrest on suspicion them both under suspicion of committing a crime till one or both sobers up enough to be able to say who was driving. If they still insisted they couldn't remember, I think the police would "grill" them both thoroughly in separate interviews till one "cracked".
Sounds a good storyline for a TV cop drama, perhaps you have the makings of a scriptwriter!

[jake-the-peg]

I caught the end of that program, there was an update at the end that the police were unable to press charges because they were unable to prove who was driving.

The forensics officer on the program looked a bit exasperated because as she said it's hard to prove forensically who was driving.

Fingerprints on a wheel don't mean anything, the passenger could have touched the wheel getting out or anything like that.

You can't preosecute them both for obstruction because one of them is lying and one telling the truth and you don't know who.

High risk stragegy because if they turn up a witness or some cctv footage you'd likely avoid a ban by virtue of going to gaol

[Shadow Man]

Good question.

having given it serious thought I would firstly let the court decide, not the police.

I would charge BOTH with driving whilst under the influence but also charge BOTH with aiding and abetting the offence.

Call me a legal genius, if you must.

Then BOTH can still be convicted with aiding and abetting the offence. They are not going to deny it are they? If they do, they can be convicted of the actual driving!!!! If they can;t remember (not quite a denial) they I would just go with the A+A.

Another interesting question would be Siamese twins. One is drunk, one isn't. Who was driving?

[kujawski]

Ah but Siamese twins would share the same body, wouldnt the alchohol consumed by one be felt by the other, as they are probably sharing the same blood stream.

[Shadow Man]

Yes but say they had independant heads. One drank themselves silly and fell asleep. The other one did not realise and their brain chose to drive!!!

[Goodsoulette]

I saw this last night and was annoyed that neither one had drink drive charges bought against them. Surely they should have just both been charged.

[kujawski]

true, but then how can you charge both of them for drink driving, when obviously both of them couldnt have been driving at the same time?

should have both been charged for 'drunk whilst in charge', but then where they, they could argue that they where both passangers.?

[Shadow Man]

A charge is not a matter of the facts. A charge is basically a summary of the evidence to meet a court case.

That is why I have said let the court decide.

People are very often arrested, charged and convicted of three different offences (usually in Public Order or assualts) but can happen with any crime.

[jake-the-peg]

The CPS require that a case has a reasonable chance of succeding before they'll press charges.

Given that you have no evidence that one of these people was actually driving I'd say you had very little chance of success with a charge of Aiding and abetting.

After all in this case the non-driver is not lying to the police.

Imagine yourself in that position, you tell the police that the other person was driving, he lies and says it was you. What can you do? you can't prove it how would you feel about being charged with A+A?

[dzug]

You say both are insured - they are probably not. OK for third party claims and legally, yes, but the insurance company could decline to pay out for the damage to the car they were driving

[Shadow Man]

peg leg,

If one person was lying then the truth is out there to be found. A whole different ball game.

And yes a CPS guideline is there must be a reasonable chance of a successful outcome, but in the matter of most drink driving, the case goes straight to court bypassing the CPS until read to a magistrate.

[black bunny]

Just wanted to say what an interesting question this has been and some interesting, thoughtful answers. This is what I like to see in AnswerBank, not like some of the mindless kark you read in Body and Soul...

[jake-the-peg]

I thought you were bringing a charge of A+A shadow man remember?

[NORMANTHEDOG]

kujawski, you must be off your head,it would never happen,still you got this lot going for a while.

[jake-the-peg]

Norman, it did happen.

Read my first answer.

It was on the Traffic cops program and after the update said that no further action was taken because it couldn't be established who was driving

[NORMANTHEDOG]

must have missed it.

[seatrout]

It would not be possible to determine who was driving. Also spouses are not compellable witnesses against each other. I had a case like this - each said the other was driving and the end result result was neither got charged